Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Title to the Bill states that it is: "An Act to provide that information relating to the repairability of certain products be made available and to provide for related matters." Ba mhaith liom ar dtús mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le hOifig na gComhairleoirí Dlí Parlaiminte as an obair a rinne siad ag ullmhú an Bhille seo, go mór mór d'Orla Ryan, Aoife Kavanagh agus Laura McCormack They gave us great help. These supports from the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisors, OPLA, are essential for Opposition TDs in order that we can both hold the Government to account and work constructively with it to introduce new legislation. This Bill is not just about sustainability; it also aims to enhance consumer protection and reduce the cost of living. I hope the Government will allow it a swift passage through the House. I hope the Government sees the extreme pressure that people are under and that this encourages the Government to introduce important measures to reduce costs for households in the current cost-of-living crisis.

This Bill creates a repairability index for common consumer goods such as laptops, washing machines and lawnmowers. It allows consumers to understand the ease with which a product can be repaired, as well as information on the availability of spare parts and guidance on how to carry out repairs. The number of products covered can be expanded by the Minister, and there are sanctions for companies that do not comply. This means that the legislation can evolve alongside innovation and inventions in the future. Provision is also made in respect of enforcement. This will be essential in order for the legislation to be effective.

The Bill is modelled on measures adopted in France in 2021 and Belgium in 2024. When households are making important and often expensive but essential purchases, they rarely have up to date, relevant information concerning the reliability of the products they are choosing. Consumers rarely have any data on how likely a product is to break or whether they are likely to be able to repair it. As a result, they are forced to make important decisions while relatively blindfolded. As disposable income dwindles and company profits soar, it is essential that we take steps to address this imbalance that ordinary people face. Companies are increasingly making products that will break and that will therefore need to be replaced. Due to the fact that these companies are driven by profit, products have lifespans that are far shorter than was previously the case. Companies truly do not make them like they used to, but this Bill can be used a tool to hold them to account. It can also act as an incentive to improve the durability of products as they become more attractive to consumers.

I will turn now to the right to repair directive, which the Government is required to transpose into Irish law by the end of next year. The Government will claim that this is enough, but the right to repair directive is extremely limited in its scope and ambition. Product-specific regulations make it difficult to understand a consumer's right to repair different items, so we will need our own legislation and our own State-wide measures. For example, eco design regulations only apply to a few products covered through the product-specific regulations, leaving other products unregulated and potentially unrepairable. The EU has made certain spare parts available to end users, but these represent a minority of spare parts. The majority are only available to professional repairers who must undergo and pass a lengthy administration process before they are qualified to have those products available to them. The right to repair directive bans certain anti-repair practices, such as part pairing and software blocks, and requires manufacturers to provide repair services and information even outside the guarantee period. However, such anti-repair practices are still allowed if justified by legitimate and objective factors. This leaves a loophole for manufacturers and the obligation to repair applies only to those few products already covered by repairability requirements under eco design, allowing manufacturers to offer replacement over repair if this is cheaper.

The right to repair directive mandates that consumers be given access to information on the price of spare parts and that those parts are provided at a reasonable price. There is a catch, however. The declared price will only be indicative and, let us be honest, is likely to be overshot by manufacturers. Furthermore, the concept of a reasonable price is not defined so the responsibility is left to member states or to case law. We have to go further than what the EU has suggested and directed. The EU will have repairability scores for products, starting with smartphones, under the eco design regulation but these repair scores do not include the price of spare parts as a parameter.

This legislation, on the other hand, will include spare parts on the scorecard. As the cost of living crisis rages, we must do everything that can be done to reduce the burden on households. As well as the Minister of State's mandate regarding the circular economy, I am urging him to consider the relief this legislation will bring to struggling households when he is considering its passage through the House.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Daly and Quinlivan for tabling this Bill. It is important legislation and something that will help many people across this State who are faced with huge bills they do not necessarily need to face.

It is a lot of anecdotal evidence but we all have personal experience of when the washing machine or something else breaks in the house and the repair person says that, because of the way it is constructed, it is uneconomical to repair it and sometimes, bizarrely, cheaper to replace it. That is the advice I have been given several times when the washing machine has broken down. You are told there is no point and it would be cheaper to buy a new one. I find that incredible. One of the rationales given to me by a repair person, which goes to the legislation we are discussing, is that, in the old days, the machines used to be made with much more durable parts. Where there was a metal part in a given machine, there is now plastic. The plastic heats up and cools down hundreds or thousands of times, so it goes brittle and breaks. That is the design. They are designed by the companies to make them cheaper, first of all, but also to make them less durable. Then the replacement parts are not available or they are so expensive it makes repair completely uneconomical. We see that happening time after time.

Expenses like this come out of the blue for families having real difficulties with their personal finances. These are not something that can be planned and there is no strategy. It just happens, and possibly at the worst time, like Christmas, a communion or back-to-school time. All of a sudden, people are faced with paying €300 to €500 for a new machine. That is the financial cost for individuals and families.

We can look at the manufacturers and ask whether it is by design or default that these machines do not last as long, but we must really focus our minds on the waste. We talk about a circular economy. The Rediscovery Centre is in Ballymun and I am not sure whether the Minister of State has ever visited but what it does to reuse things is incredible. It reuses in an imaginative way some of what we would normally throw away. I advise anyone listening to go the Rediscovery Centre because it is a brilliant place. What it is doing to recycle and upcycle a lot of material is just phenomenal. One of our local centres put up a post today about seven tins of paint. That is paint that would have been thrown away. People bring their bits of paint. There is now a paint recycling centre in there. It is top quality and you can get whatever colour you want, so go down to the Rediscovery Centre in Ballymun because it is really good.

Look at the amount of washing machines, cookers, microwaves, lawnmowers and laptops. There are a lot of laptops now that cannot be reused because of the software that is in them. I saw some figures that were shocking, namely, that 62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated every year, which is equivalent to 400 cruise ships, and just 15% to 22% of all e-waste ends up being recycled.

We are talking about ensuring we recycle and reduce as much as we possibly can, so for me this Bill is a no-brainer. This is something we should grab with both hands and move forward as quickly as we can to ensure that, when people buy a product, they have an understanding that product is made to last. We need to go back, in some ways, to the old days. In one sense, you can never go back, but it is something we need to do in this case. We need to look at what was done in the past where we had all this equipment that lasted years and years. Our mothers and fathers would have had washing machines or cookers that lasted years and years, whereas now you barely get two to three years out of them. That is by design and it is to ensure we throw things out and buy new equipment.

I again commend Deputies Daly and Quinlivan for tabling this Bill and I hope we move as quickly as we can with it.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, thank the Deputies for the imaginative legislation they have tabled. The Government recognises the importance of progressing legislation in respect of the right to repair and information on the repairability of certain products. The Deputies have outlined many examples I am well familiar with, in the sense that, when I started out in life, white goods lasted a greater length of time than they do now. The Department is already working to achieve the aforementioned aim. There are a number of key EU developments in this area already taking place that I will try to outline.

The EU directive on common rules promoting the repair of goods, or the right to repair directive, was published in the Official Journal on 10 July 2024. It came into force on 31 July 2024 and is due to be transposed into Irish law by 31 July 2026. This directive aims to encourage the repair of consumer goods both within and beyond the liability period. It tackles obstacles that discourage consumers from repairing goods due to inconvenience, lack of transparency or difficulty accessing suitable repair services. It therefore encourages repair as a more sustainable consumption choice, which contributes to the climate and environmental objectives under the European Green Deal. The new rules under the directive aim to ensure manufacturers provide timely and cost-effective repair services and inform consumers about their rights to repair. The rules aim to strengthen the EU repair market and reduce repair costs for consumers.

This directive is part of a broader set of measures to support the Commission’s goal of climate neutrality in the EU by 2050. I will list the other two initiatives. On the supply side, the ecodesign for sustainable products regulation, ESPR, sets the framework for product repairability at the production phase, in particular, on product design requirements and the availability of spare parts. On the demand side, there is the directive on empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair commercial practices and better information. Its purpose is to provide better information to consumers on the durability and repairability of products. It also increases the protection of consumers against unfair commercial practices that prevent sustainable purchases, such as greenwashing, early obsolescence, which is what the Deputies have identified and most of us believe is a common feature of domestic products, and the use of unreliable and non-transparent sustainability labels and information tools.

Taken together, these three initiatives are complementary and generate synergies by establishing a comprehensive approach towards the common objective of sustainable consumption. They are designed to have a cumulative effect and together cover the entire life cycle of a product.

On the circular economy, which falls under the remit of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, the national reuse and repair network established by the EPA will have a key role to play in bringing together public bodies and national organisations to facilitate knowledge-sharing and engagement to support and scale reuse and repair in Ireland.

We will ensure that reuse and repair skills are building within the population, and opportunities exist to develop skills and employment; that barriers to reuse and repair are removed and are standard practice in priority areas.

I will briefly outline the main provisions of the right to repair directive. Article 4 sets out details of a European repair information form. The form will set out all the details of the repair, including the price, timelines and if a replacement good can be provided while the repair is being done. The form is designed to enable consumers to compare repair offerings. Article 5, the obligation to repair, sets out the main changes that the directive brings in. These changes relate to goods that will have to be repairable under European law. These goods, listed in Annex II to the directive, are household washing machines, household washer-dryers, household dishwashers, refrigerating appliances, electronic displays, welding equipment, vacuum cleaners, servers and data storage products, mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets, household tumble dryers, and goods incorporating light means of transport batteries.

For these goods, once the directive comes into operation, the manufacturer will have to offer a repair service beyond the legal or commercial guarantee period, either directly or subcontracted. The manufacturer can offer the repair service for free, or for a reasonable price. The length of time the repair service needs to be offered for will depend on the relevant provisions of the ecodesign regulations for that product. lf a manufacturer offers spare parts to enable repair, then they need to do so at a reasonable price so as not to deter repairs. A manufacturer will have to provide the indicative prices for repair on a website so consumers will have access to information to help inform their decision-making around a repair. Manufactures will be forbidden from using any contractual clauses, hardware or software techniques that would impede the repair of the goods. This will include a ban on impeding the use of any compatible spare parts, including 3D printed parts, once the parts conform with product safety or intellectual property law. This will enable independent repairers to make repairs more easily. Manufacturers will also not be able to refuse to repair a good because someone else has tried to repair it first. That is a really important feature.

Article 7 deals with the European online platform for repair. The EU will set up a website that will contain the details of repairers by country. Repairers, sellers of refurbished goods, purchasers of defective goods for refurbishment and community-led repair initiatives will be able to include their details on this site to enable consumers to find the most appropriate repair service. Article 13 states that member states will have to take at least one measure promoting repair, and this must be reported to the Commission five years after the directive enters into force.

This directive has benefits for both consumers and business. Consumers will be able to obtain a repair for their appliances outside the liability period. Consumers will also be able to check the price of a repair by the manufacturer, and to then compare it with the price of a repair by an independent repairer. The directive also maintains the consumer's right to choose between a repair and a replacement if there is an issue with their goods during the legal guarantee period. The directive will also encourage the repair industry. It will allow small repairers to use 3D printed parts or parts other than those sold by the manufacturer to repair goods. Repairers will be able to see the price of a repair by the manufacturer to enable them to compete with this price. It will allow repairers, and those who purchase goods for repair or who sell refurbished goods, to advertise their services on an EU website. Article 10 of the directive says that, where appropriate, the Commission shall adopt guidelines to support, in particular, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in complying with the requirements and obligations set out in the directive. Since my appointment I have made it my top priority to support the small and medium sized businesses that are the backbone of Ireland’s economy. The directive supports this.

The Private Members' Bill focuses on requiring suppliers and dealers to provide and display repairability information, a matter which is addressed in the right to repair directive. Manufacturers are required to inform consumers about indicative prices for typical repairs and provide information on spare parts and repair services on their websites or in instruction manuals. In addition, the right to repair directive is broader in its application. It covers a larger number of products and requires manufacturers to comply with repair obligations. Harmonising regulations through the right to repair directive promotes consistency and reduces potential conflicts by providing a single, clear framework for all member states.

As a general point, legislative initiatives in this area are best progressed, where possible, at EU level to ensure harmonisation, promote policy coherence and avoid the risk of fragmentation within the EU Single Market. For these reasons, Ireland is supportive of introducing legislation on these matters on a cross-EU basis rather through unilateral domestic legislation. The EU Commission outlined in its competitiveness compass communication earlier this year that it will pursue a forceful approach to full harmonisation and enforcement. As noted, there are developments under way at EU level which would impact the Bill or displace it entirely. As Ireland is required to transpose the directive into national law, the Private Members' Bill would create unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies with the EU framework. Additionally, it is important that policy development is evidence-based, and Government better regulation principles are adhered to. This ensures that legislative proposals are proportionate, consistent and transparent, and includes the necessity for a regulatory impact analysis. It is for these reasons that we are opposing the Private Members' Bill while recognising the input the Deputies have made. It will be part of the legislation coming forward at European level. I have no doubt that when that legislation is being transposed, the Deputies will have an opportunity to contribute to ensure the legislation going through here meets the highest standard possible. Notwithstanding that the Deputies have put forward the Bill, I am hopeful that they will understand the position of the Government in terms of being part of the European Union and the progression. They may choose not to push it to a vote, although of course that is their entitlement if they wish. We are opposing the Bill on the principles we have outlined but not on the basis of the spirit or sentiment of what they wish to achieve. The work they have done is commendable but there are other elements in train at European level which will eventually be embraced by the Government. I look forward to the Deputies' next remarks.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Deputies Pa Daly and Quinlivan on bringing forward this really excellent Bill. The Labour Party is glad to give it our support. We have a long history of advocating for better waste management and advocating for measures to reduce waste. Indeed, it is more than 20 years since we published our Waste Matters policy document in 2005, an alternative strategy on waste management to that of the Government of the day. It proposed radical and meaningful actions to improve the ways we deal with waste and build the appropriate infrastructure to do so. Many of those policy proposals have since been adopted, like waste segregation, investing in recycling plants, providing waste treatment facilities and so on.

Our commitment to waste management and minimisation is rooted in our vision for a red-green future for Ireland, and our belief that the current economic model of endless growth at all costs is incompatible with addressing the climate crisis and creating a more sustainable economy. It is my belief that in order for us to secure our future and the future of our environment, we need to move towards an economic model which is not entirely predicated on continual consumption, but rather based on the principles of a circular economy and even doughnut economics. Obviously this will not happen overnight. It will be about radical but incremental and practical change. Deputies Daly and Quinlivan’s Bill, in the idea behind it and what it seeks to achieve, deals with two really important aspects of that move towards a more circular economy and addressing the climate crisis more broadly, namely, transparency and sustainability.

Tackling waste and addressing our tendency to discard and replace products at the first sign of a defect is probably the key element in bringing about that circular economy. The reality is that much of the waste that we produce need not be waste at all. Too often, viable goods or products are tossed, and replacement is prioritised over repair. The offshoot is that so many products needlessly end up in landfills or incinerators. I do not need to spell out the damage that does to our environment. It is unsurprising in many ways because little is ever done to actually encourage people to make an effort to repair a product in the first instance, nor has there been much of an incentive to do so. I do think there is a lack of transparency on repairability of products and that certainly feeds into that tendency to get rid of them at the first sign of trouble.

As I have said, this Bill provides a way of addressing that lack of transparency in a simple and practical way. The absence of much encouragement or the lack of information around the repairability of electrical products, among others, has led to a sort of culture of discarding, which simply is not compatible with a circular economy. This Bill provides redress for both of those elements, namely, encouragement and actual information. If people knew what was repairable, what parts might be needed and how they would go about it, they would be more inclined to do so.

This Bill also provides a good way of giving effect to some elements of a directive that was passed by the European Parliament last year on the so-called right to repair, something which my party has called for in the past. In 2022, the Labour Party put down an amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill that would have effectively introduced such a right on all electronics sold within the State. The amendment was rejected by the Government at the time, largely on the basis that the EU proposal was still pending. However, as it has now been adopted by the Parliament and Council, we would like to see the Government move in that regard.

The provisions of this Bill should play a part in transposing the directive. Indeed, one of the key aspects of that directive is that information on repair conditions and services should be provided with products. I acknowledge that in this Bill's provisions apply to certain products like laptops and washing machines but I welcome the Deputies' inclusion of ministerial discretion in applying the provisions to more products. I encourage the Minister to use that discretion liberally. There is scope in that regard to take meaningful action to tackle what is referred to as planned obsolescence - the Minister of State mentioned this earlier - where manufacturers design products with the intention that they would break or become obsolete in the short to medium term. It has been a problem for decades but has become particularly acute in the electronics industry. E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams and the proliferation of planned obsolescence is one of the key contributing factors. We see a lot of it with products like cars, laptops and phones. It is particularly frustrating with phones because often it is a software issue. The phone itself might be fine structurally but with iPhones, for example, if your phone is an older model it eventually cannot facilitate software updates and basically stops working.

The practice of planned obsolescence plays into that linear economic model where we discard and replace instead of repairing. It is clearly unsustainable. The amount of raw materials exploited in making electronics and the amount of waste created when they are discarded is extremely damaging to the global environment. I am conscious that given the globalised nature of manufacturing, addressing planned obsolescence and the waste it creates is perhaps best addressed at an EU level and I am glad that work is being carried out in that regard but there are effective measures we can take at a national level. This Bill provides one. I know that Deputies Daly and Quinlivan took inspiration from a French law introduced in 2020 that brought in a scoring system for tech products and appliances where a sticker on packaging indicates an estimated lifespan and the durability and repairability of the product. It is simple but effective. It is something we in the Labour Party have called for to be introduced previously. France has also introduced a law which bans the deliberate curtailment of the lifespan of a product, thereby addressing that issue of planned obsolescence, and has been strong in enforcing it. In 2020, France's consumer protection authority fined Apple €25 million for failing to inform customers that updating their phone’s software would slow the device down.

There are things we can do to address these issues at a national level without necessarily waiting for co-ordinated action at EU level. This Bill and what it introduces is one example. I also ask the Government to consider the Labour Party proposal to establish a national recycling and repair company. Public enterprises have played a critical role in the industrial and economic development of this State and as we reshape our economy to a more sustainable and circular model, they must play a key role again. It could perhaps be developed from within the current Bord na Móna company structure, could provide for the development of a social pillar in the circular economy and could provide for more attractive working conditions, as well as focusing on training and ensuring sufficiently skilled workers to build up economic resilience and job safety in a growing sector.

Before I conclude, I will pay tribute to the various community groups like the men’s and women’s sheds that run repair cafés and provide voluntary repair services in their local areas. Often, they will provide workshops where people can learn how to repair common household items themselves too. A lot of them relate to bicycles and other things like that. We are blessed in Dublin South-West to have many community organisations who put the principles of sustainability and a circular economy into action. I particularly want to commend the new Priory Market that will open in Tallaght on the quantity of re-used materials that are being put into its new facilities. It looks absolutely stunning but is a really great example of the circular economy working. I believe we should be doing more to support these groups. I know that for many, insurance is a big issue. A State scheme for insurance or some form of annual grant funding, which we have called for already, would be a really helpful measure to allow them to grow and flourish and I ask the Minister to consider it. I want to again commend the Deputies on bringing forward this Bill. It is a really positive initiative and I urge the Minister to put it into action.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the need for progressing legislation in this area. I thank the speakers who have contributed. We are all at one in terms of its importance and we all share the same objective here. There is a significant recognition of that, particularly on planned obsolesce which all the Deputies have identified, and it is something we need to address. Developments at EU level are already addressing these issues and as such, I have to oppose the Bill at this time to avoid duplication of work and any potential issues that might arise from that. Members' contributions certainly inform the debate and can form part of the transposition of the EU directive at a later stage. The EU directive on common rules promoting repairs of goods came into force on 31 July 2024 and is due to be transposed into Irish law by 31 July 2026. That is really only 12 months away.

The directive aimed to encourage the repair of consumer goods and to ensure manufacturers provide timely and cost-effective repair services. The rules aim to strengthen the EU repair market and reduce repair costs for consumers. The proposal is part of a broader set of measures to support the Commission's goal on climate neutrality in the EU by 2050. It sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that the encumbrance will be on them on at a later stage and the marketplace will change. There is a recognition there is a lead-in period for the transposition but when that itself becomes law, I hope it will make clear to manufacturers that the approach to date is not appropriate and needs to change. Clearly, the rules coming into place will have the capacity to enforce that culture change.

The directive has benefits for both consumers and businesses. Consumers can obtain repairs of appliances outside the liability period and will have the choice of checking the price of repair between the manufacturer and an independent repairer. They will maintain the right to choose between a repair or a replacement. The directive will also encourage the repair industry. As I said, it will allow small repairers the 3D printed parts and parts other than those sold by the manufacturer to repair goods. That takes away the incentive to continue the practice and the culture that has developed. Repairers will be able to see the price of a repair by the manufacturer to enable them to compete with this price.

It will allow repairers and those that purchase goods for repair or that sell refurbished goods to advertise their services on an EU website. This is comprehensive legislation at European level that will have an impact here. Many of the products that we talk about and recognise the problems with are sold across the European market in the Common Market area. Additionally, Article 10 of the directive states that where appropriate, the Commission shall adopt guidelines to support, in particular, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in complying with the requirements and obligations set out in the directive. This has the potential to provide greater opportunities for our SMEs to compete with the larger manufacturers.

The Private Members' Bill focuses on requiring suppliers and dealers to provide and display repairability information, a matter which is addressed in the right to repair directive. Manufacturers are required to inform consumers about indicative prices for typical repairs and provide information on spare parts and repair services on their website or in instruction manuals. In addition, the right to repair directive is broader in its application. It covers a larger number of products and requires manufacturers to comply with repair obligations. Harmonising regulations through the right to repair directive promotes consistency and reduces potential conflict by providing a single clear framework for all member states. As Ireland is required to transpose the directive into national law, the Private Members' Bill would create unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies with the EU framework.

More broadly, legislative initiatives in this area are best progressed at EU level, where possible, to ensure harmonisation, promote policy coherence and avoid the risk of fragmentation within the EU Single Market. The European Commission outlined in its competitiveness compass communication earlier this year that it will pursue a forceful approach to full harmonisation and enforcement.

Additionally, it is important that policy development is evidence-based and better regulation principles are adhered to by Government. This ensures that legislative proposals are proportionate, consistent and transparent, and includes the necessity for a regulatory impact analysis. For these reasons, I oppose the Private Members' Bill. Nevertheless, I compliment the work that has been done because, notwithstanding the reasoning I am outlining for the Government opposing it, I believe the work Deputy Daly has done will inform the debate to progress to legislation that will address all the issues he has outlined. I thank him for that.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I thank Deputies Ahern and Donnelly for their support in this matter. I have listened to what the Minister of State said. I note what he said about the Private Members' Bill creating unnecessary duplication of effort and potential discrepancies. He said these matters were best progressed at the EU level. I disagree with him. I do not think that what is included in the directive goes far enough. That is why we are bringing this legislation. Just because the EU says something, it does not mean it should be the be-all and end-all of the matter. National legislation is important and should also be there if it improves an older set of recommendations or directives from the EU. The Minister of State said the matter was addressed in the right to repair directive but we do not think that directive goes far enough.

While I note Articles 4 and 5, one other point I take issue with is what the Minister of State said about the manufacturer having to provide the indicative prices for repair on a website so consumers will have access to information. Consumers are beholden to the manufacturer and if they ever have the misfortune to have a car in a crash, for example, they have the book value but if they compare that value to the manufacturer's price or the garage price, there are big differences between them, which would inevitably be weighted against the consumer.

Without meaning to repeat what I said earlier, there are a number of difficulties with or limitations in the directive. For example, what I said about vehicle design regulations can only apply to the few products that were covered through this. A point picked up by my colleagues is that there are loopholes for manufacturers. This legislation will give an ability to evolve if new products come in, whereas the directive is more limited in relating to and being directed at a certain number of products. That is not good enough, in our opinion. The EU has the right to repair directive, which bans anti-repair practices, but there is a loophole which says that it can be justified by legitimate and objective factors. I worry that will again be weighted in favour of the manufacturers. I have already mentioned the declared price being indicative. For those reasons, respectfully, I disagree with the Minister of State's argument that the directive is enough. I do not agree that this Bill will create duplication. I think it will only improve what is there. We will press this to a vote.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 21 May 2025.